I’ve closed the thread (at least, the thread I think Eliza’s comment refers to). I’d forgotten that tool was available. (This is a really well-mannered site that requires little monitoring and correction, so it easy to forget the existence of rarely used tools.)

But I will say this in Richard’s behalf. He is well mannered in that he keeps his comments restricted to one or two threads. That makes him easy to ignore. I admit that I let it go on too long—and was somewhat guilty of throwing fuel on the fire myself—but the discussion never spread to the site in general. If it had, I would have quashed it much earlier.

Thanks, Eliza, for bringing it up and Dave for closing the thread. I didn’t want to say anything more and be accused of trying to stifle discussion, but I did resent the site turning into a forum for one guy to endlessly express his proud ignorance. Talking about the history and usage of English words and phrases is fun; yet another go-around on the topic of the Decline and Fall of English, not so much.

I don’t think that the thread impacted the viewing of the site. If Richard were starting many threads on this topic, it may have had an impact, but as it is, there are only a couple of threads and given that we all know what Richard is about, we can simply choose not to view those threads, if they are likely to irritate us.

EDIT: having said that, I certainly understand why the thread was closed. I wonder what he’s like in real life: baffled and enraged by ordinary conventions many times a day, I suppose.

Unfortunately, milum is taking up the mantle, providing less long-winded but equally objectionable twaddle in thread after thread. I know you’ll tell me to ignore it, but it’s hard to ignore twaddle, especially when it’s not confined to one spot.

Unfortunately, milum is taking up the mantle, providing less long-winded but equally objectionable twaddle in thread after thread. I know you’ll tell me to ignore it, but it’s hard to ignore twaddle, especially when it’s not confined to one spot.

Thanks, Eliza, for bringing it up and Dave for closing the thread. I didn’t want to say anything more and be accused of trying to stifle discussion, but I did resent the site turning into a forum for one guy to endlessly express his proud ignorance. Talking about the history and usage of English words and phrases is fun; yet another go-around on the topic of the Decline and Fall of English, not so much.

That is quite a civil observation from Mr.Languagehat, (such a hubristic name). I must assume that only on Dave’s forum must the rules of etiquette apply exclusively to prescriptivists, a nomenclature that I’ve been branded. I must abide by the rules of etiquette: civil behavior and no ad hominem attacks, everyone else is exempt, especially Languagehat.

As I said before, he need not indulge me by reading my threads, but apparently he finds my “ignorance” irresistible.

Keep in mind that my ignorance is associated with minds conceivably with a little more acumen and commonsense than his, but most assuredly a superior accreditation. Furthermore, my ignorance, according to him, is predicated on resisting everyone’s beliefs on this forum; therefore, conversely his ignorance is based on resisting mine.

How imperceptive of him to claim that I am the one prolonging these, (I cannot define them as tedious, for they do create a certain amount of attention) endless threads. I am only responding and defending my position. An extremely precarious one on this forum, for not only am I excoriated, but I’m also disparaged and derided (two words that are synonymous, but I must intensify my point) and if it were a public forum those words would be substituted by accurately slung apples and oranges. However, I have to assume that Languagehat’s preferred choice of weapons would be daggers and arrows.

Mr. Languagehat’s knowledge is based on science, and on that science he’s established his ethics on language, but I just don’t agree with them. However, when he defines my principles as ignorance it undermines his credibility.

Regarding the decline in English, yes, it is an ongoing debate, and there are articles written every day on its decline. Many of those articles have merit, and those that do can stand up to Languagehat’s position rather firmly.

Concerning “objectionable twaddle”, I suggest that Eliza ignore them, for there are other people on this forum who might find these threads silly, or perhaps informative, but undoubtedly entertaining.

Dave if you’re insistent on terminating these prescriptivist and “ponderous” threads on language I would like to offer a suggestion; I have it prepared in my mind but I don’t have the time, at the moment, to transcribe it.

I don’t think that the thread impacted the viewing of the site. If Richard were starting many threads on this topic, it may have had an impact, but as it is, there are only a couple of threads and given that we all know what Richard is about, we can simply choose not to view those threads, if they are likely to irritate us.

EDIT: having said that, I certainly understand why the thread was closed. I wonder what he’s like in real life: baffled and enraged by ordinary conventions many times a day, I suppose.

Thank you for the ending single clause: yes, it is a supposition, albeit inaccurate. I am not at all enraged, perhaps frustrated, but enraged is a good example of hyperbole.

What are the “ordinary conventions”? If I read you right you’re extremely accurate. I abhor conventionality, vogue expressions, conformism, trendiness based on insecurity, short sentences, and thinking within the box, as everyone does on this forum.

Excluding the above irritants, I’m your compatriot, a lover of words and literature.

I abhor conventionality, vogue expressions, conformism, trendiness based on insecurity, short sentences, and thinking within the box, as everyone does on this forum.

I’m confused. Your sentence could imply either:
1) that everybody here thinks within the box; or
2) that everybody here abhors conventionality, vogue expressions, conformism, trendiness based on insecurity, short sentences, and thinking within the box.

I abhor conventionality, vogue expressions, conformism, trendiness based on insecurity, short sentences, and thinking within the box, as everyone does on this forum.

I’m confused. Your sentence could imply either:
1) that everybody here thinks within the box; or
2) that everybody here abhors conventionality, vogue expressions, conformism, trendiness based on insecurity, short sentences, and thinking within the box.

I abhor conventionality, vogue expressions, conformism, trendiness based on insecurity, short sentences, and thinking within the box, as everyone does on this forum.

I’m confused. Your sentence could imply either:
1) that everybody here thinks within the box; or
2) that everybody here abhors conventionality, vogue expressions, conformism, trendiness based on insecurity, short sentences, and thinking within the box.

Now, ElizaD. Stop teasing. Richard’s poorly constructed sentence shouldn’t confuse a sharp girl like you. I think you are just kidding. I am sure you read his concluding line…

Excluding the above irritants, I’m your compatriot, a lover of words and literature.

I abhor conventionality, vogue expressions, conformism, trendiness based on insecurity, short sentences, and thinking within the box, as everyone does on this forum.

I’m confused. Your sentence could imply either:
1) that everybody here thinks within the box; or
2) that everybody here abhors conventionality, vogue expressions, conformism, trendiness based on insecurity, short sentences, and thinking within the box.

Chalk one up for erosion of Englitch.

I apologize, I thought everyone on this forum abhorred vogue expressions, conformism, trendiness, conventionality etc. How could that be when it is I who is the only non-conformist on this site. Am I excused? After all, OP Tipping, our on site pro bono psychiatrist, evaluated my condition as borderline psychosis.

Sobiest and Eliza, I thought we were compatriots? Please, pardon these moments of delusion, for my psychosis materializes unwarranted and, voilá, I’ve metamorphosed into a descriptivist. But how can that be? Descriptivists are exempt from grammatical scrutiny. But Richard is branded a bona fide prescriptivist and he cannot hide from those markings.

My sentence was awkwardly constructed intentionally as a double entendre; the outcome was a little more than I expected, two birds with one stone,(Eliza and Sobiest). Two innocuous, pusillanimous provocateurs who could not hesitate a nano second to question my grammatical construction.

And by doing so clarified and confirmed my distasteful position: the importance of concise grammatical expression to avoid ambiguity, and the disingenuousness of descriptivists.